Abstract

The significance of web accessibility in e-learning
design is well known. Accessible design will (ideally)
ensure that all students can benefit from e-learning
resources, regardless of any visual, aural, motor, cognitive
or neurological impairments; and regardless of the device(s)
used to access the web.

Web-based multimedia technologies can enhance the
learning experience for many users, and on many levels -
specifically including users with a range of disabilities;
however, simultaneously, multimedia technologies are often
criticised for being inaccessible to users with
disabilities. So, what are the real implications of web
accessibility for designers of educational multimedia? Can
multimedia resources be accessible? Is there a conflict
between accessible design and creative pedagogical
design?

This paper examines some of the issues relating to
balancing accessibility and multimedia in e-learning, and
presents a framework for best practice in the development of
accessible web-based educational multimedia.

Introduction

Web-based multimedia is becoming ubiquitous in a diverse
range of educational contexts: from supplementing
classroom-based teaching in primary schools; to the delivery
of distance education degree programmes online.

Well-designed educational multimedia may enhance the
learning experience on many levels:

It may help to clarify complex and abstract concepts
(Phillips 1997).

It can provide opportunities for individualised and
self-directed learning (Gayeski, 1996).

It may accommodate different learning styles
(Montgomery 1995).

It can indirectly allow access to information and
situations that are time or place dependent; or which are
too expensive, dangerous or impractical to access
directly. Examples are virtual laboratories (Gil, Blanco
and Auli, 2000) and virtual field trips (Tuthill and
Klemm, 2002).

Educational multimedia also has specific potential to
widen disabled students' access to education, and may allow
some individuals to participate more fully and more
independently. For example:

A mobility-impaired student can interact with her
peers and participate in virtual field trips from
home.

Via animations and simulations, concepts and processes
can be clarified for a student with cognitive
difficulties.

It is therefore ironic that, despite its potential to
support learning, and despite the opportunities that it may
create for disabled students, multimedia often presents a
significant barrier to people with disabilities. As
multimedia becomes increasingly prevalent in education,
students with disabilities may be further disadvantaged or
stigmatised if this is not addressed.

As an example, consider a simulated laboratory experiment
employing: video footage of the experiment; animation of the
chemical reaction; voice-over descriptions; and "virtual
participation" in the experiment. This could be an
invaluable learning resource to many students: it will allow
participation in the experiment in a safe environment, from
any location, and as many times as is required; it will
allow visualisation of complex processes that are not
visible to the naked eye; it may also improve accessibility
for those who might never be able to fully participate in
the 'real' experiment.

However, the same simulation could easily exclude certain
users:

A vision-impaired individual may be at a disadvantage:
if a synchronised equivalent alternative to visual content
is not available; if different information is presented
simultaneously on different parts of the screen; if the
visual content cannot be easily scaled or magnified; or if
being able to see the screen is requisite for
participation in the experiment.

A hearing-impaired individual may be excluded if an
equivalent, and appropriately synchronised, alternative to
the voice-over is not available.

A mobility-impaired student may be excluded if
navigation and interaction via alternative devices or
voice recognition software is not supported, and/or if
very precise control of a pointer is required for
navigation and interaction.

Users with certain cognitive or neurological
difficulties may be adversely affected by the animated
content. For example, flashing content may trigger
seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy, and users
with attention deficit disorder or dyslexia can find any
movement or animation extremely distracting.

What is accessible multimedia?

Web accessibility is the practice of ensuring that media
delivered via the web is accessible to all potential users,
regardless of any visual, aural, motor, cognitive, or
neurological impairments, and regardless of the device(s)
used to access the information.

The ideals of accessibility are tied closely to the
concept of universal design: "[T]he design of products and
environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest
extent possible, without the need for adaptation or
specialised design." Mace et al (1997).

Educational multimedia designed according to the
principles of universal design not only benefits students
with disabilities: those who access the web via devices
other than a "typical" desktop workstation will also
benefit. For example, users who access the web: via devices
with small display screens (mobile phones, PDAs etc); via
low bandwidth connections; via older computers; in noisy
environments, or where audio cannot be used; or whilst
simultaneously engaged in other activities (whilst driving,
for example).

Students with low literacy levels, and those who are
accessing the web via a language other than their
first-language will also benefit from accessible design of
educational media. In addition, accessible design gives
learners more choice and flexibility in their learning
experience, allowing them to adapt media to their personal
preferences.

W3C Web accessibility guidelines

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is responsible
for the development of global standards for the World Wide
Web. The W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG
1.0) are recognised as the 'definitive' guidelines in
relation to web accessibility. Complying with these
guidelines should, in theory at least, be the easiest method
of creating accessible web-based multimedia; however, in
their current format, the WCAG guidelines are verbose, and
can be difficult for non-technical readers to interpret
(version 2.0 promises improvements in this regard). The
guidelines are also notoriously difficult to implement,
especially where multimedia is concerned: as yet, the
specific multimedia technologies endorsed by the W3C are
much less prevalent than popular proprietary technologies
such as Macromedia Flash, a format which is currently
widely employed in the development of educational
simulations and animations.

It is not surprising, therefore, that learning designers
may be confused or apprehensive about incorporating
multimedia into their designs. For example, they may -
wrongly - conclude that:

Inclusion of any multimedia will result in
non-compliance with W3C WCAG guidelines.

Making multimedia accessible is not cost
effective.

The W3C WCAG accessibility guidelines are just too
confusing to implement.

Framework for best practice in design of web-based
educational multimedia

The authors propose a five-step framework for best
practice in the development of inclusive web-based
educational multimedia: 1. Use multimedia appropriately; 2.
Choose the most accessible technology for your
circumstances; 3. Exploit the accessibility features of the
technology you choose; 4. Be aware of the accessibility
limitations of the technology you choose; and 5. Provide (at
least) a functional 'text equivalent' to multimedia
content.

1. Use multimedia appropriately

There are many sound pedagogical reasons for using
multimedia, and there are many circumstances where
appropriate application of multimedia can enhance
accessibility. However, there are also situations where the
pedagogical or accessibility benefits are not sufficient to
warrant development of the resource, or where accessibility
barriers outweigh the perceived benefits.

Before designing a new multimedia resource, consider the
following:

What are the pedagogical aims of the resource?

What are anticipated pedagogical benefits?

Who will use the resource? How will they use it? Where
will they use it?

Are there any accessibility benefits? For whom? How
might these be enhanced?

Will the resource pose any accessibility barriers? For
whom? How might these be mitigated?

2. Choose the most accessible technology for your
circumstances

A key recommendation made by the W3C in the WCAG 1.0
guidelines is the endorsement of W3C - as opposed to
proprietary - technologies:

Checkpoint 11.1: Use W3C technologies when they are
available and appropriate for a task and use the latest
versions when supported (W3C, 1999).

W3C technologies relevant to multimedia include:

XML:
eXtensible Markup Language. This is an underlying enabling
technology for many other W3C developments.

A full discussion of these technologies is beyond the
scope of this paper; however, it is worth noting the W3C's
rationale for endorsing them:

W3C technologies undergo continual review to ensure that
accessibility issues are considered during the design phase,
and they are extensively evaluated and reviewed for
accessibility prior to being endorsed by W3C.

Consequently, W3C technologies consistently include
'built-in' accessibility features. In some cases these
provide intrinsic accessibility benefits for any application
of the technology; in other cases, they provide facilities
for content developers to ensure accessibility in a
content-specific way.

The W3C's specifications are developed in an open,
industry consensus process. This maximises the opportunity
for third-party development of support for these
technologies, which, in turn, maximises support for the
needs of relatively small-scale 'niche' users, such as many
disability groups.

They typically require either "plug-ins" or stand-alone
applications to be installed before they can be accessed.
These are not always available for all platforms or on all
devices that people use to access the web. Users with
disabilities are naturally more likely to be using
specialist access technologies, which make all such extra
requirements more burdensome.

Their development is, in general, controlled by a
particular vendor, or is open to third-parties only on
payment of royalties to the vendor. This may inhibit
innovation for 'small' and/or 'specialist' markets -
precisely the markets for users with particular
disabilities.

So: Should proprietary technologies should never be used?
Can proprietary technologies be accessible?

At present, there are no clear-cut answers to these
questions: the accessibility of a particular resource will
depend on the technology used, and on how that particular
technology is employed. The appropriateness of a particular
technology must therefore be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.

Ideally, proprietary technologies should not be used if
there is a functional W3C technology alternative available;
therefore, before using, Flash, for example, one should
pause to ask whether the same effect would be possible using
W3C technologies. At the time of writing, however, of the
multimedia technologies recommended by the W3C, only HTML,
XML, XHTML and CSS are considered to be mainstream: being
supported by current browsers and having development tools
widely available. The more sophisticated W3C multimedia
technologies, such as SVG and SMIL, are not yet as mature,
nor are they as well supported.

In some cases, creative use of a combination of the
mainstream W3C technologies may produce the desired effect;
in other situations, a less mainstream technology, such as
SVG would be required, and, for the time being at least, it
may easier, more cost effective, or more practical to employ
a proprietary technology. However, even in such cases, it is
worth investigating available development tools to see if
they support W3C technologies (in addition to proprietary
ones), either already or as part of a development roadmap.
This may allow relatively easy deployment of equivalent
resources offering both proprietary and W3C
technology versions in parallel, with minimal additional
development overhead.

3. Exploit the accessibility features of the technology
you choose

W3C technologies have built-in accessibility features.
Proprietary technologies are more unpredictable in the
accessibility features offered. However, regardless of
whether one is using a W3C or a proprietary technology, one
should exploit whatever specific accessibility
features it makes available.

As an example, consider one of the most popular
proprietary multimedia development technologies: Macromedia
Flash. Up until the launch of Flash MX 2004, this technology
was criticised for being inaccessible (Clarke, 2000);
however, Flash MX 2004 is very improved in terms of
accessibility, and it is now possible to develop Flash
artefacts that incorporate:

Capabilities for keyboard accessibility;

Compatibility with some, but not all, screen
readers;

Capabilities for provision of alternatives to auditory
and visual content;

Magnification of movies; and

Options for user control over dynamic content.

Add-on tools for synchronised captioning of Flash MX
movies, such as Hi
Caption SE and MAGpie, are also available. Comprehensive
guidelines for developing accessible Flash are given
elsewhere, for example by Smith (2004) and Regan (2004).

4. Be aware of the accessibility limitations of the
technology you choose

All multimedia technologies, whether W3C or not, have
accessibility limitations.

Proprietary technologies

Most crucially, Flash requires a plug-in that is not
available for all platforms or for all devices.

It is not possible to mark up and define document
structure.

It not possible to add metadata to elements.

There is no provision for user definition or user
manipulation of styles.

In addition, Flash accessibility features are not
incorporated by default: they must enabled by the author;
hence, although it is possible to create Flash that is
accessible on some platforms and on some devices,
inaccessible Flash content is the default.

W3C technologies

W3C technologies are only accessible if they are used in
accordance with W3C accessibility guidelines. In addition,
although W3C technologies include many features that will
improve accessibility, these features may not necessarily be
implemented on older browsers or on all devices that people
use to access the web.

A text equivalent of multimedia elements should
be just that: in so as far as is possible, users must be
able to benefit equally from the text and multimedia
versions of the resource.

It is important to keep the text equivalent synchronised
with the multimedia element: if the multimedia version is
updated, the text version must also be updated.

Conclusion

This had been, of necessity, a brief survey of issues
arising in inclusive or universal design of web-based
multimedia materials. The cited and hyperlinked resources
provide much more detailed advice and guidance on specific
technologies and applications. However, in summary, we
suggest the following two 'take home' messages:

In general, multimedia provides an important opportunity
to enrich learning experiences for all students, and
particularly including students with disabilities. We
strongly encourage the incorporation of such content where
it is pedagogically well motivated and designed.

However, in any such multimedia innovation there is also
potential for accidental and gratuitous exclusion
of some students with disabilities. We strongly encourage
careful consideration, at the earliest design stage, of how
effective and reasonable accommodations can be made to
minimise or, ideally, eliminate, any such unintended
outcomes.